MATOT NUMBERS XXX,2 – XXXII

MAS’EI NUMBERS XXXIII – XXXVI

Studying our religious sources confronts us with an additional requirement: understanding the social and political realities of the historical moment that interests us. For example, an appreciation of our modern environment, which is essentially materialistic, implies an obsessive preoccupation with the constant acquisition of objects and goods. This insatiable hunger for the material is the attitude that prevails today in our Western culture. In other cultural systems, the order of values is often different. Therefore, evaluating other cultures according to our hierarchical pattern of values often leads us to misinterpret the causes and meaning of events.

Many argue that not enough importance is given to the word in our cultural environment to a promise. Our pronouncements and verbal commitments are treated lightly. On the other hand, in the biblical world, a vow, a promise, an oath are considered key and binding. “Motsa sefatecha tishmor veasita,” “what emanates from your lips you will care and fulfill,” is a fundamental principle of the Torah. (In particular, in the Latin American world, we find a lack of emphasis on fulfilling verbal commitments). 

Our text begins with an analysis of promises, the obligation to keep them, and the conditions under which they can be modified, qualified, or annulled. It is probably based on the premise that a human being, a thinking entity, must reflect before making a pronouncement. The human ability to conceive the universe through intellectual models, which is related to its linguistic competence (aptitude that separates the human being from any other creation) supposes to guard and jealously care for this faculty.

There are certain promises, Neder in Hebrew, which from the outset are invalid. For example, the Neder havai is a promise based on an impossible fact, such as promising a flying camel. When one unwittingly makes a promise, it is called Neder shegaga, and it is also worthless. Neder onsim refers to a promise that cannot be fulfilled because something unexpected happens, for example, a sudden ailment that prevents the performance of a certain action at a given time.

Our Chachamim differentiate between Neder and, Shevuah which is an oath. The subject of the Neder is an object or a circumstance (except the Neder of donating a sum for charity or for the Beit HaMikdash, in which case the person himself is compromised). In contrast, the subject of the Shevuah is the human being himself. The Neder, which makes an equivalence between what is permitted and forbidden according to the Torah, is invalid. For example, it is not valid to claim that an apple will be banned from me as if it were pork. (Unless the ban had been given by another verbal pronouncement, such as the promise to offer a certain animal for slaughter).

From that moment on, the result is that you cannot ingest the meat of that animal because it immediately belongs to the Beit HaMikdash). At the same time, you cannot swear about something that contradicts our precepts. There is no point in a Shevuah in which one claims that he will ingest pork, just as a Shevuah in which one promises not to put on the Tefilin for the morning prayer Shacharit is invalid.

Our tradition is not sympathetic to promises and oaths. In the opinion of our Chachamim human beings must act correctly without the extreme recourse of a Neder or a Shevuah. If a person repents immediately after making a promise, it is possible to cancel it retroactively. The process of Hatarat nedarim, which is a kind of absolution, allows a scholar or a group of three people to exempt one from a promise, asking him first, in case he had made the promise without knowledge of the consequences of it. According to our chapters, a husband can relieve his wife of a promise, and a father can do the same with his minor daughter.

Although the Chachamim opine Tov shelo tidor, namely that it is preferable not to promise, while certain exceptions are considered. For example, making a Neder abstain from alcoholic beverages, is profitable according to Rambam and Ramban. Some authors of the Talmud think that some promises demonstrate arrogance. The Neder of refraining from eating meat, for example, (when a certain period is not specified, the promise is considered to last thirty days) is a kind of demonstration of feeling superior because the person points out that he can live while abstaining from certain pleasures, while others cannot.

Our chapters also deal with the person who kills another person without intending to do so. (This person is called Shogeg, which alludes to the absence of intent to kill, but does not imply total innocence. It is estimated that there was carelessness or lack of foresight, which resulted in the death of a human being). The Torah orders the construction of six cities in Hebrew Arei Miklat, which serve as a refuge for these people. In addition, the forty-two cities of the tribe of Levi were also considered “cities of refuge.”

According to the biblical text, the Goel Hadam, meaning the redeemer of the spilled blood (probably a close relative of the dead, or perhaps it is someone specifically designated to avenge that death) could kill the person who had committed the crime, even though there was no intention to kill. The Ir Miklat offered protection against the Goel Hadam. According to the Chachamim, if the Goel Hadam violated the protection of these places, he would be sentenced in turn for having committed a deadly crime.

The person in question was to remain in the Ir Miklat until the time of the death of the Kohen Gadol, who was the chief of the Kohanim in office when the crime was committed. From that moment on, the one who had involuntarily committed the crime could return to his place of residence without fearing revenge for the Goel Hadam. What is the relationship between the Kohen Gadol and the crime committed? From a certain perspective, the community leader is equally responsible for everything that happens, including the crimes that have been committed. 

The argument is based on the fact that the murder testifies that the mentor’s affection was not adequate; had it been effective, he would have inspired and motivated them to refrain from committing a crime. In the Jewish tradition, Mita mechaperet, death is the great atonement for sins, and therefore the death of Kohen Gadol frees those involved from guilt. According to Abarbanel, the death of Kohen Gadol is a cause for national mourning and sadness, and the magnitude of this collective pain serves to dampen the wrath of the Goel Hadam for him to desist from his purpose of revenge.

According to the commentator Sforno, God knows the degree of guilt of the person who perpetrated the crime and can determine with certainty whether or not there was the intention to murder another person. Therefore, the longevity of the Kohen Gadol is somehow related to the relative innocence of the person who committed the crime. Some remain in an Ir Miklat for the rest of their lives due to the long life of the Kohen Gadol. This explanation presents the difficulty that the years of the life of the Kohen Gadol are a function of the degree of guilt of another person. We could get out of our predicament, considering, as we mentioned, that the Kohen Gadol is indirectly involved in what happens in society and is, therefore, also responsible for the individual behavior of the members of the community.

MITSVAH: ORDINANCE OF THE TORAH IN THIS PARASHAH

CONTAINS 1 POSITIVE MITSVAH AND 1 PROHIBITION

1. Numbers 30:3 Law on Voiding Promises
2. Numbers 30:3 Not to break a promise

MAS’EI

NUMBERS XXXIII – XXXVI

THE ROLE OF THE WISE

Our chapters describe in detail the journeys of the Hebrews through the desert, noting the locations they touched on their journey to the Promised Land. In the place called Hor Hahar, near the land of Edom, Aharon, the chief of the Kohanim, dies. Aharon died at the age of one hundred and twenty-three, a few months after the beginning of the conquest of Israel. Moshe also dies in the desert, and a new leadership headed by Yehoshua emerges who will be the driver in transforming the people into a nation in the land of Canaan.

The Jewish people are prepared for this task by the centuries of slavery in Egypt, which gives freedom its real value. It was also communicated to them on Mount Sinai, where they received a complex and complete system of laws to develop in an orderly manner in an independent environment. Of course, conquering Canaan is long and tedious, but even more difficult is the transformation of the family descended from Yaacov from a people into a nation.

The two great leaders, Aharon and Moshe, die, and a new generation takes the reins of command and guardianship of the people. The dominant figure among the brothers had been, indisputably, that of Moshe. “MiMoshe ad Moshe lo kam keMoshe,” it was often said that from the time of the biblical Moshe until the days of Maimonides, no comparable personality had emerged. The descendants of Moshe do not inherit his leadership, and his children disappear from the pages of history.

Aharon, who plays a secondary role to that of his brother, is different because his children are his royal and spiritual heirs. The Beit HaMikdash, as the main spiritual nucleus for the Jewish people, depended for its functioning on the Kohanim, the descendants of Aharon.

Moshe grows up in the palace of Paro, the Pharaoh. Moshe knows and grows up in the royal court and is unaware of the street and slavery. Moshe has been conditioned, since childhood, for leadership and nobility. As an adult, he stumbles upon the reality of the fate of his people, which is servitude.  Moshe can lead and instruct, lead and inspire, but he does not belong to the Amecha, the Hebrew people. Moshe belongs to the select, to royalty. It is probably difficult for him to identify with the downtrodden. 

His father-in-law, Yitro, claims on one occasion that the people have to stand all day to have access to his trial while he, Moshe, remains seated. (Keeping the distance of the case, it is interesting to note that Theodore Herzl, the great leader of political Zionism, is also unaware of pogroms and persecutions. Herzl suffers a cultural shock over the case of Captain Dreyfusupon discovering that anti-Semitism existed in the midst of civilized Europe).

On the other hand, Aharon is born, grows, and develops within the people until he reaches the position of leader. But his roots, like that of the rest of his co-religionists, are in the bitterness of slavery. In the episode of the Egel Hazahav, Aharon identifies with his people, feels their bewilderment at Moshe’s tardiness, and understands their fear, bewilderment, and uncertainty, and considers themselves lost, abandoned, in a hostile desert. The insecurity fostered by decades of slavery is still being felt. Only a new generation that did not experience the Egyptian yoke will build a society that contemplates choice and freedom. 

The contrast between the personalities of Moshe and Aharon can perhaps be seen from the following perspective. Moshe is the transmitter of the Divine Will to the people. Moshe is the spokesman of the Law, of the imperative that is demanded of society for its elevation and fulfillment. On the other hand, Aharon is the defender and lawyer, the mediator and interlocutor who manifests the needs of the people before the Divine throne. Aharon is the one who strives to create bridges and bring the community closer to the Creator.

Moshe’s role is to bring God’s message to earth. Aharon’s role is to elevate the mundane to the heavenly.  Moshe’s starting point is the Eternal. For Aharon, the center of his concern is Am Israel, the Jewish People. While Moshe is the messenger of God, Aharon is the defender of the interests of the people. We have listed some differences that are not absolute because our purpose is didactic. On numerous occasions, Moshe intercedes for the needs of the people, while Aharon and his descendants engage in religious worship and service of God.

For the sages of the Talmud, the essential characteristic of Aharon is his commitment to Shalom, peace. We must all learn from the example of Aharon, according to our Chachamim. We must individually be Ohev Shalom and Rodef Shalom, lovers of peace and have peace as a purpose. This concept of Shalom has been used in the culmination of the blessing that the Kohanim impart to the people by Divine order. The central prayer of every religious service, the Amidah, concludes with a blessing that qualifies God as the one who blesses His people Israel with Shalom.

According to the Talmud, scholars propagate peace worldwide by proclaiming: “Talmidei Chachamim marbim shalom baolam,” “Scholars increase peace in the world.” In ancient times the Pax Romana had become the fundamental axis of Rome’s politics. But this was a peace obtained thanks to the surefooted march of its legions. It was a peace that concealed ideological conflicts and did not allow the expression of any conflictive or different thought from that of the Patricians or those of the Senate of Rome. On the other hand, in the Jewish tradition, Shalom is the harmony that arises from the serious analysis of the different alternatives that the intellect conceives. Shalom is the concordance and coincidence of the conclusions after an exhaustive study of the various possible paths.

Being a Rodef shalom refers to a state of mind. It is a distant and, perhaps, unattainable goal, but we approach true Shalom as we head down this path. By reducing the distance between different opinions, a greater rapprochement and understanding between human beings and greater tolerance are obtained.

Moshe and Aharon represent a certain separation of powers. Moshe most closely resembles the political leader, while Aharon is the one who leads the ritual (especially the order of sacrifices) and is the instructor of the masses. Naturally, this differentiation is not an exact one because Moshe is traditionally regarded as the master par excellence known as Moshe Rabbenu, “Our Master Moshe.” Over time, the descendants of Aharon were the first popular teachers and those who intervened and adjudicated in the cases of Tsara’at, which is a condition similar to leprosy, and those of Tum’a, which is ritual impurity, in general.

During the last stage of the second Beit HaMikdash, the Kohanim were also the kings in the time of the Chashmonaim. Some argue that this was the moment of the greatest glory of the Jewish people in ancient times. For others, the coincidence of the priesthood with a civil authority constituted a conflict of interest with negative consequences for society. The destruction of the Second Beit HaMikdash relieved the Kohanim of their importance (due to the impossibility of continuing the sacrifices). The Chachamim, who are the scholars, assumed, from then on, the spiritual leader of the Jewish people.

MITSVAH: ORDINANCE OF THE TORAH IN THIS PARASHAH

IT CONTAINS 2 POSITIVE MITZVOT AND 4 PROHIBITIONS

1. Numbers 35:2 Providing cities for the Levites who also served as Cities of Refuge
2. Numbers 35:12 Do not execute a person found guilty before trial
3. Numbers 35:25 Forcing the person who unintentionally killed to go to a City of Refuge
4. Numbers 35:30 The witness in a capital case cannot judge the event
5. Numbers 35:31 Not accepting a redemption payment to save a murderer from the death penalty
6. Numbers 35:32 Not accepting a redemption payment to free a person from having to go to a City of Refuge